did anyone try this: cheap point-n-shoot on the back of a large format beast?

"Bob Salomon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

Got source on quicksockets?

Marflex 973 808-9626

Thanks for the nudge, Bob. You can tell the Linhof is new to me.

"Bob Salomon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

Got source on quicksockets?

Marflex 973 808-9626

Thanks for the nudge, Bob. You can tell the Linhof is new to me.

"Bob Salomon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

Got source on quicksockets?

Marflex 973 808-9626

Thanks for the nudge, Bob. You can tell the Linhof is new to me.

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quicksockets". Are these the receptacles
for the special Linhof cable releases (surely the Rolls-Royce of cable
releases)?

Basically. The accept a cable release, and have extension bits that work
into the recessed lensboards to get at the shutter release. Quite neat.

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quicksockets". Are these the receptacles
for the special Linhof cable releases (surely the Rolls-Royce of cable
releases)?

Basically. The accept a cable release, and have extension bits that work
into the recessed lensboards to get at the shutter release. Quite neat.

Sandy wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message
...

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Roland Karlsson

wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote in
: :

: Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

: You are from US are you? I don't really think you can
: comprehend how bad it really can be. Here in Sweden we
: pay 75% taxes on average (employer tax, income tax
: plus consumer tax). The main part of it goes to
: welfare - a third to pensions - a third to long time
: ill - and the rest to ... the rest. Pensions I can
: accept - I will be there myself some day. But the long
: time ill are now many timeas as many as some years ago,
: and it is growing.


I do live in the US and fortunatly I don't pay 75% in taxes. When all is

said

and done it's about half that. If kerry gets elected it's sure to go up.

Glad to know you are making more than $200,000, Frank. It is above that
level that Kerry proposes to raise tax rates.


Actually if Frank is paying "about half that" (i.e. about 37.5%) in federal
income taxes he would have to be making well over a million dollars a year.
The highest bracket is 37% but that rate doesn't apply except to taxable
income (gross income less all adjustments and deductions) above $311,951.
Everything below that is taxed at a lower rate. So to pay an effective rate
of anything like the 37.5% Frank says he pays, his taxable income would have
to be in the millions.

And just what Kerry means when he talks about $200,000 isn't clear
(surprised?) Income taxes aren't paid on what people "make," taxes are paid
on what is "made" less all adjustments and deductions and after all
available credits. There's a big difference between raising taxes on
families that "make" $200,000 (but whose taxable income may very well be
closer to $100,000) and raising taxes on families whose taxable income is
$200,000 (but whose total income may be $300,000 or more depending on
deductions and adjustments).

And of course the $200,000 number is just an election ploy. You can be sure
the number will get lowered once he's elected because adding taxes only on
people in the $200,000 range raises relative peanuts in revenue. You don't
generate large amounts of tax revenues by imposing taxes even at
confiscatory rates on only 2% or even 5% of the population.

Your saying that doesn't make it so. It is a matter of doing the
arithmetic. From what I've read, I believe you are just wrong about
that. The Bush tax cuts in fact reduced taxes very significantly for
the upper 2 percent of the population and rescinding just that part of
those cuts would in fact produce significant increases in income.
"Confiscatory" is a loaded word. We do have a progressive income tax.
If you don't believe in such a system, fine, but in any such system,
people with higher incomes will be paying higher marginal tax rates.
How high that should be is subject to debate, and using language like
that doesn't add any light.


Historically when Democrats have talked about taxing the "rich" they end up
doing whatever they're talking about to individuals and families with
incomes in the $50,000-$75,000 per year range (except when they decided to
tax Social Security, then the Dems decided that the "rich" were people with
incomes of more than $32,000).

Sorry. I already pointed out that Clinton's "tax increases" didn't
increase my tax.

I can't offhand think of any deduction or
credit that has been enacted or expanded in the last 30 or so years that has
been made available to families with an adjusted gross income of more than
about $100,000 per year and the cut-off is usually much lower than that. So
I'd guess it's the large group of people in with incomes (regardless of
exactly how that term is defined) in the $50,000 - $100,000 range that Kerry
and the other Dems will screw when they take over. That's where the money
is.

You know people have actually made detailed analyses of these matters.
Of course it is possible to mislead by the way you do the counting, and
I suspect that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of doing that.
But in the end, it is possible to figure out just who benefited and
who suffered from recent tax policy. But without going and doing the
arithmetic, it is silly to made statements like yours, or probably mine.

Sandy wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message
...

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Roland Karlsson

wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote in
: :

: Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

: You are from US are you? I don't really think you can
: comprehend how bad it really can be. Here in Sweden we
: pay 75% taxes on average (employer tax, income tax
: plus consumer tax). The main part of it goes to
: welfare - a third to pensions - a third to long time
: ill - and the rest to ... the rest. Pensions I can
: accept - I will be there myself some day. But the long
: time ill are now many timeas as many as some years ago,
: and it is growing.


I do live in the US and fortunatly I don't pay 75% in taxes. When all is

said

and done it's about half that. If kerry gets elected it's sure to go up.

Glad to know you are making more than $200,000, Frank. It is above that
level that Kerry proposes to raise tax rates.


Actually if Frank is paying "about half that" (i.e. about 37.5%) in federal
income taxes he would have to be making well over a million dollars a year.
The highest bracket is 37% but that rate doesn't apply except to taxable
income (gross income less all adjustments and deductions) above $311,951.
Everything below that is taxed at a lower rate. So to pay an effective rate
of anything like the 37.5% Frank says he pays, his taxable income would have
to be in the millions.

And just what Kerry means when he talks about $200,000 isn't clear
(surprised?) Income taxes aren't paid on what people "make," taxes are paid
on what is "made" less all adjustments and deductions and after all
available credits. There's a big difference between raising taxes on
families that "make" $200,000 (but whose taxable income may very well be
closer to $100,000) and raising taxes on families whose taxable income is
$200,000 (but whose total income may be $300,000 or more depending on
deductions and adjustments).

And of course the $200,000 number is just an election ploy. You can be sure
the number will get lowered once he's elected because adding taxes only on
people in the $200,000 range raises relative peanuts in revenue. You don't
generate large amounts of tax revenues by imposing taxes even at
confiscatory rates on only 2% or even 5% of the population.

Your saying that doesn't make it so. It is a matter of doing the
arithmetic. From what I've read, I believe you are just wrong about
that. The Bush tax cuts in fact reduced taxes very significantly for
the upper 2 percent of the population and rescinding just that part of
those cuts would in fact produce significant increases in income.
"Confiscatory" is a loaded word. We do have a progressive income tax.
If you don't believe in such a system, fine, but in any such system,
people with higher incomes will be paying higher marginal tax rates.
How high that should be is subject to debate, and using language like
that doesn't add any light.


Historically when Democrats have talked about taxing the "rich" they end up
doing whatever they're talking about to individuals and families with
incomes in the $50,000-$75,000 per year range (except when they decided to
tax Social Security, then the Dems decided that the "rich" were people with
incomes of more than $32,000).

Sorry. I already pointed out that Clinton's "tax increases" didn't
increase my tax.

I can't offhand think of any deduction or
credit that has been enacted or expanded in the last 30 or so years that has
been made available to families with an adjusted gross income of more than
about $100,000 per year and the cut-off is usually much lower than that. So
I'd guess it's the large group of people in with incomes (regardless of
exactly how that term is defined) in the $50,000 - $100,000 range that Kerry
and the other Dems will screw when they take over. That's where the money
is.

You know people have actually made detailed analyses of these matters.
Of course it is possible to mislead by the way you do the counting, and
I suspect that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of doing that.
But in the end, it is possible to figure out just who benefited and
who suffered from recent tax policy. But without going and doing the
arithmetic, it is silly to made statements like yours, or probably mine.

Sandy wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message
...

Frank Pittel wrote:

In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Roland Karlsson

wrote:

: Frank Pittel wrote in
: :

: Keep working millions on welfare depend on you

: You are from US are you? I don't really think you can
: comprehend how bad it really can be. Here in Sweden we
: pay 75% taxes on average (employer tax, income tax
: plus consumer tax). The main part of it goes to
: welfare - a third to pensions - a third to long time
: ill - and the rest to ... the rest. Pensions I can
: accept - I will be there myself some day. But the long
: time ill are now many timeas as many as some years ago,
: and it is growing.


I do live in the US and fortunatly I don't pay 75% in taxes. When all is

said

and done it's about half that. If kerry gets elected it's sure to go up.

Glad to know you are making more than $200,000, Frank. It is above that
level that Kerry proposes to raise tax rates.


Actually if Frank is paying "about half that" (i.e. about 37.5%) in federal
income taxes he would have to be making well over a million dollars a year.
The highest bracket is 37% but that rate doesn't apply except to taxable
income (gross income less all adjustments and deductions) above $311,951.
Everything below that is taxed at a lower rate. So to pay an effective rate
of anything like the 37.5% Frank says he pays, his taxable income would have
to be in the millions.

And just what Kerry means when he talks about $200,000 isn't clear
(surprised?) Income taxes aren't paid on what people "make," taxes are paid
on what is "made" less all adjustments and deductions and after all
available credits. There's a big difference between raising taxes on
families that "make" $200,000 (but whose taxable income may very well be
closer to $100,000) and raising taxes on families whose taxable income is
$200,000 (but whose total income may be $300,000 or more depending on
deductions and adjustments).

And of course the $200,000 number is just an election ploy. You can be sure
the number will get lowered once he's elected because adding taxes only on
people in the $200,000 range raises relative peanuts in revenue. You don't
generate large amounts of tax revenues by imposing taxes even at
confiscatory rates on only 2% or even 5% of the population.

Your saying that doesn't make it so. It is a matter of doing the
arithmetic. From what I've read, I believe you are just wrong about
that. The Bush tax cuts in fact reduced taxes very significantly for
the upper 2 percent of the population and rescinding just that part of
those cuts would in fact produce significant increases in income.
"Confiscatory" is a loaded word. We do have a progressive income tax.
If you don't believe in such a system, fine, but in any such system,
people with higher incomes will be paying higher marginal tax rates.
How high that should be is subject to debate, and using language like
that doesn't add any light.


Historically when Democrats have talked about taxing the "rich" they end up
doing whatever they're talking about to individuals and families with
incomes in the $50,000-$75,000 per year range (except when they decided to
tax Social Security, then the Dems decided that the "rich" were people with
incomes of more than $32,000).

Sorry. I already pointed out that Clinton's "tax increases" didn't
increase my tax.

I can't offhand think of any deduction or
credit that has been enacted or expanded in the last 30 or so years that has
been made available to families with an adjusted gross income of more than
about $100,000 per year and the cut-off is usually much lower than that. So
I'd guess it's the large group of people in with incomes (regardless of
exactly how that term is defined) in the $50,000 - $100,000 range that Kerry
and the other Dems will screw when they take over. That's where the money
is.

You know people have actually made detailed analyses of these matters.
Of course it is possible to mislead by the way you do the counting, and
I suspect that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of doing that.
But in the end, it is possible to figure out just who benefited and
who suffered from recent tax policy. But without going and doing the
arithmetic, it is silly to made statements like yours, or probably mine.

"jjs" wrote in news:10hs8m6qfdqgv26
@news.supernews.com:

It is neither lawsuits or equipment that is the main cost.
It is "pre pension" due to "hurting backs" and people that
"hits the wall" that is the main problem.

We must have a translation issue. I don't understand what you wrote!


To understand this you must understand the Swedish system.
If we get ill we are guarantied a certain level (80%) due
to our illness insurance system. Now - there is a max, so
you will only get 80% if you are in the middle class and below.

Now - this is good. It is good as long as there are many more
work days than ill days in the system. And this was normally
the case. But the system has been abused. It is used to take
care of long time ill; people that might be 35 years old and
never ever go to work again. This group is increasing. In parts
of Sweden with high unemployment, they might be 25% or more.
This means today that nearly 30% of our tax money is payed to
people that probably could work, but will never do it again.
This cost is today larger than our normal pension cost.


/Roland

In article ,
"jjs" wrote:

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure what you mean by "Quicksockets". Are these the receptacles
for the special Linhof cable releases (surely the Rolls-Royce of cable
releases)?

Basically. The accept a cable release, and have extension bits that work
into the recessed lensboards to get at the shutter release. Quite neat.

Also now being phased out for a new type that uses a very short
extension similar to the Gepe Wide Angle Extension. The extension goes
between the socket and the shutter and eliminates the pins that the
former QR used.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.